As the nation of Iraq falls into anarchy with reports of Islamic beheadings and murders, and the city of Baghdad said to fall, the following is a quote from Vice President Joe Biden on his and President Barak Obama's accomplishments in Iraq.
Did Joe Biden have an idea that the government that eventually emerged would not be a democratic one? Did he have concerns about a Muslim or Islamic law government?
Several reports say the new terrorist government was too "extreme" even for Al Quada. Reports also state that Sharia law (Islamic law) is being imposed throughout the country.
Is this a new government? Is it a terrorist attack?
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.
"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
Here is the same statement with emphasis and analysis:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq.
When one is "very" about something, it means it is sensitive. He is not only optimistic about Iraq, but "very" optimistic. What makes one "very"?
It could be that the optimism is simply more than what was expected, or it could be that the expectation was for pessimism.
These are standard reasons for the word "very", yet in all cases, including deceptive cases, it is noted as emphasis added to the statement.
I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.
When someone says "I mean" there is a self-clarification that the subject feels is necessary. Why the need to clarify?
Note also that this could be only "one" of, with "achievements" in the plural. The topic of "Iraq" is, in the language of the subject, used as an accomplishment to be compared to other accomplishments. It would be interesting to learn the others that the speaker considers "accomplishments."
You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer.
Statement Analysis deals with what one says, and what one does not say. Please note that he does not say "90,000 American troops will come home by the end of summer" but:
1. "You're going to see"
These are additional words that are not necessary, if, in fact, the subject wishes to emphasize the 90,000 troops coming home.
He does not say that 90,000 troops will be coming home, but that "you're going to see" them "marching"
The word "marching" taken in context with "you will see" indicates the import of the sentence: visibility. The emphasis of the sentence is not on withdrawal of troops, but of a spectical to be seen. "Marching" is often in display. It can show unity, strength, and well disciplined rehearsed troops. It is for show, not combat.
This is consistent with "you're going to see" in the subject's language.
Besides seeing 90,000 troops marching, the subject wants something else to be on display:
You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.
"You're going to see" is spectator language: "a stable government" is simple, and plain, with no emphasis, nor attempt to dress it up in the spectator fashion.
The word "actually" means that he is comparing two or more things. Where else might the stable government be moving? This would have been an interesting question at the time (2010) with what has happened since. What government is he speaking about?
Note that it will not be a representative government that is stable. It is already a stable government, on display, that will "actually" be heading towards a representative government. This is to acknowledge that the stable government planned will not be representative, but will be moving towards it, instead of another direction ("actually")
Question for analyst: Did the subject already have an idea of what kind of non-representative government would be established prior to this statement? Is this why the brain gave the word "actually"?
"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now.
Note the broken sentence of self censoring: "I've spent" is stopped. What was he going to say? How much time he has spent there?
"Now" indicates that he has more plans to go.
I go about every two months -- three months.
I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
Note that he knows "every one" of the "major players"; We would need to know more about his internal personal subjective dictionary to understand who are "players" and who are "major players" and how they represent "all the segments" of "that" (distance) society.
It is interesting to here him use the word "that" in the context of having gone there 17 times and going there every two to three months.
Note that he claims to know "every one" of the major players in "all of the segments" and they "all" have "impressed" him how they have "decided to use";
Please note that one may decide, but not follow through. This is a very commonly used word by deceptive people. "I decided to come into work early..." is not to say "I came to work early"
He is impressed, not with what they did (or did not do; not use guns) but only with their decision.
The new government now is reportedly engaged in extreme violence, as western countries are now evacuating their citizens from Iraq.